Pope Leo’s Letters

Pope Leo’s Letters

(Acts of Chalcedon, Documents before the Council, pp. 87 – 110)

Pope Leo refused to accept the decrees of the Second Council of Ephesus of August 449, which restored Eutyches and deposed a number of bishops, including Flavian of Constantinople, Domnus of Antioch, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa;¹ and the pope was personally insulted at the council by the suppression of his Tome condemning Eutyches: the document was received but not read. In consequence he famously condemned the council as a latrocinium or ‘den of robbers’ (as in Document 11, below). This led to a breakdown of ecclesiastical communion between Rome and the churches of the east. Deadlock continued till the death of Theodosius II on 28 July 450. The general Marcian was chosen to succeed him;² to maintain the Theodosian dynasty he married Theodosius’ sister the Augusta Pulcheria. There was an immediate change of ecclesiastical policy, with Eutyches being degraded and exiled without waiting for a formal rescinding of the decree of Ephesus II in his favour.

Since August 449 Leo had repeatedly pressed Theodosius II to authorize an ecumenical council in Italy, to reverse the decisions of Ephesus.³ Marcian on his accession wrote to Leo, revealing his intention to call a council, nominally on Leo’s authority, but actually in the east and under the emperor’s control (Document 1). There followed a second letter from Marcian to Leo, issued on 22 November (Document 2), in which he stuck to his plan for an ecumenical council in the east, inevitably restricted to eastern bishops,⁴ but invited Leo to come and preside over it. Both letters indicate, briefly and vaguely, that the prime business of the council would be the confirmation of the Christian faith – that is, in the first place, the condemnation of the errors of Eutyches. Marcian’s letter was accompanied by one from Pulcheria (Document 3), which added the significant details that Archbishop Anatolius of Constantinople had signed Leo’s Tome, that the council would deal with the cases of those bishops who had been deposed at Ephesus, and that in the meantime these bishops had been told by Marcian to reoccupy their sees, even before the council’s decision. In fact, the emperor’s agents were active in securing subscriptions to the Tome from as many bishops as possible in the regions dependent on Constantinople and Antioch, as is mentioned in a letter of Leo’s (Document 9); already on 21 October Anatolius had held a synod at Constantinople at which he and his bishops signed the Tome and were formally restored to communion with the Roman see.⁵

It took some months for the letters of 22 November to reach Leo, who sent a brief holding reply to Marcian on 13 April 451,⁶ while replying more fully to Pulcheria, in whose support he had more confidence (Document 4). To her he expressed the view that the reconciliation of those bishops who now repented of their support of Dioscorus could be effected by his own representatives and Anatolius of Constantinople acting in concert. On the same day he wrote to Anatolius himself to the same effect, insisting that the names of Dioscorus and his fellow-chairmen at Ephesus, Juvenal of Jerusalem and Eustathius of Berytus, should be excised from the diptychs read out at the liturgy, a step that Anatolius had shown no eagerness to implement.⁷ The fact that in his letter to Pulcheria he urged her to give her support to the clergy of Constantinople who had remained loyal to the memory of Flavian through thick and thin shows that he did not yet trust Anatolius, who before his elevation had been Dioscorus’ agent at Constantinople.

Just ten days later Leo had the opportunity to write to Marcian again (Document 5), and he now revealed his objection to the emperor’s plan to hold a council in the east: he had no wish for a council which would reconsider doctrinal questions that, in his view, had already been resolved in his Tome, while the disciplinary questions relating to the standing of various bishops could be settled without calling a council. In subsequent letters⁸ he added the objection that bishops in provinces threatened by war could not properly absent themselves from their dioceses. His reference to Sicily as ‘that province that seems to be safer’ in a subsequent letter (Document 7) implies that he was thinking of Italy; this shows his argument to be specious, since very few Italian bishops would attend an eastern council in any event. Undeterred by papal opposition, Marcian proceeded on 23 May to summon the eastern bishops to an ecumenical council, to be held at Nicaea in September of the same year (Document 6).

Why did Marcian insist on a council? It has been suggested that he believed that only a new ecumenical council could reverse the decisions of a previous ecumenical council.⁹ It is true that when the council assembled it was asked to rule on the status both of the decrees of Ephesus II (which were nullified at I. 1068 and X. 145–59) and of the bishops who were responsible for the supposed excesses of the council (they were suspended at the end of the first session and, except for Dioscorus, reinstated in the fourth). But Marcian treated the vindication of Eutyches at Ephesus as null from the moment of his accession, and invited bishops deposed at Ephesus to return to their sees without waiting for a new council (see Document 3). An ecumenical council was not like a modern parliament, which can make wrong decisions that are nevertheless valid, and valid decisions that can subsequently be repealed. Those who accepted a general council regarded its decrees as immutable, while those who did not accept it would regard its decrees as invalid even if they had not been repealed by a subsequent council.¹⁰ It is true that a mere fiat by an emperor had the limitation that it could subsequently be reversed, particularly when a new ruler came to the throne. Marcian was determined to achieve something more definitive. The choice of Nicaea as the location for the new council was highly indicative: it implied that the work of the council would be a continuation, indeed a completion, of the work of the most revered of all councils. This is why the emperor entrusted all items of current ecclesiastical business to the council; it was not because he respected the legal force of the decrees of Ephesus II. Doubtless, he had already in mind the production of a new and definitive definition of the faith; this certainly required the convoking of an ecumenical council.

Leo bowed to the situation, and in the last week of June wrote two letters to Marcian that gave the names of those he had chosen to represent him at the council (Documents 7 and 8).¹¹ Since Marcian had written months before in terms that seemed to invite Leo to chair the council (Document 2), Leo presumed that his senior legate would chair the council on his behalf, thereby controlling the agenda; it was probably only when his representatives arrived in the east that they discovered that the pope had been hoodwinked.¹² He pleaded again that the council should not be an occasion for the reopening of the doctrinal debate: it should simply reaffirm Nicaea and condemn the heretics. At the same time he wrote to Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum in Sicily, who was to be his senior legate; the letter (Document 9) is an impressive summary of the case against Eutyches, without the onesided rhetoric and hostages to fortune that marred the Tome. He also wrote a letter to the bishops who would now assemble (Document 10), which was subsequently read out at the council (XV. 6). In this letter he instructed the bishops to reaffirm the condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus of 431, and recommended his own Tome as providing the solution to the more recent doctrinal controversy; he also mentioned the need to reinstate the bishops who had been deposed at Ephesus II. In a subsequent letter to Pulcheria (Document 11) he wrote on the assumption that the principal business of the council would be accepting the repentance of the bishops who had played a leading role at Ephesus.¹³ In all, Pope Leo regarded the doctrinal controversy as having been settled by his Tome; if there had to be a council, he held that, apart from settling the status of persons, it should simply acknowledge and confirm the teaching of the Tome, as the definitive ruling on the points at issue; the last thing he wanted was a reopening of the debate, as if the teaching of the heir and successor of St Peter were simply one among a plethora of competing voices.¹⁴

Our final group of documents is made up of imperial letters relating to the presence of the assembled bishops at Nicaea, in accordance with the letter of convocation of 23 May (Document 6). An initial letter from Marcian (Document 12) informed the bishops that, since he wished to attend in person, the opening of the council would be postponed until he had finished restoring order in Illyricum, devastated by Hunnic raids. A letter from Pulcheria to the governor of Bithynia (Document 13) instructed him to expel from Nicaea clergy and monks from Constantinople who were trying to stir up support for Dioscorus and Eutyches, and warned him that if there were further disturbances he would be personally answerable. In two subsequent letters (Documents 14 and 15), the second more peremptory than the first, Marcian told the bishops to proceed to Chalcedon, which was just across the Bosporus from Constantinople (in contrast to the 60 miles between Nicaea and the capital), so that he would be able to attend the council without absenting himself from the centre of secular and military affairs. The move also enabled a fuller participation in the council by senior officials of state, and thereby a tighter control of the proceedings than would otherwise have been the case. The symbolic significance of Nicaea had to yield to more practical considerations.

Indicative of the politics of the council was Marcian’s remark (Document 14) that the Roman delegates had expressed reluctance to attend the council in his absence. They must already have sensed the tensions between themselves and the majority of the eastern bishops that were to explode dramatically at the fifth session. It was indeed the firm hand of the emperor that would ensure that the outcome of the theological debate was acceptable to Rome.

The emperor remained vague as to the business that would be put before the council: he referred simply to ‘the confirmation of the previous definitions of our holy fathers concerning the holy and orthodox faith’ (Document 15). The bishops will have presumed that the main work of the new council, like the two councils at Ephesus, would be to reaffirm the Nicene Creed and condemn the newly arisen heresies that threatened the Nicene faith; they will have expected the chief doctrinal statement approved by the council to be Leo’s Tome, just as the Council of Ephesus of 431 had not issued a new document but simply approved Cyril of Alexandria’s Second Letter to Nestorius. It was not until the second session of the council on 10 October that the bishops learnt, to their shock and displeasure, that the emperor wanted them to produce a new definition of the faith (II. 2).

¹ See pp. 30–37 above.

² See Burgess 1993-4.

³ Leo, epp. 43, 44, 54, 69, 70.

⁴ As Marcian’s letter states, invitations to the council would go out to the bishops in Marcian’s own domains – the east and Illyricum. For the bearings of this on the ecumenicity of the council see vol. 3,202–3.

⁵ Chadwick 2001, 569. For a reference to this synod see Session on Photius and Eustathius, 23.

⁶ Ep. 78, ACO 2.4 p. 38 (ep. 36).

⁷ Ep. 80 of 13 April 451, ACO 2.4 pp. 38–40 (ep. 37).

⁸ Ep. 83 of 9 June, ACO 2.4 p. 42 (ep. 41), and ep. 89 of 24 June (Document 7).

⁹ De Vries 1974, 107. De Vries’ analysis of the relations between pope and emperor at Chalcedon (101–60) is one of the best studies of the politics of the council.

¹⁰ This was the view of Leo: in Document 8 he dismisses Ephesus II on the grounds that a council dedicated to ‘the overthrow of the faith’ has no validity. His argument is not that popes are superior to councils, but that Ephesus was no true council.

¹¹ In these letters Leo does not formally give permission for the council to be summoned, but simply accepts the imperial decision. Contrast the intervention at Chalcedon (I. 9), where Leo’s representative Lucentius condemns Dioscorus’ holding of Ephesus II without papal permission, even though Theodosius II had called the council: ‘He presumed to hold a council without the leave of the apostolic see, a thing which has never been done and may not be done.’ Certainly Marcian would have had no intention of deepening divisions by summoning a council unacceptable to Rome.

¹² Only the third session, the trial of Dioscorus, was chaired by the papal legates. Note how at the beginning of this session the papal legates stated that ‘it is necessary that whatever is brought forward should be examined by our sentence’ (III. 4).

¹³ I omit a letter of Leo’s to Pulcheria (ep. 84 of 9 June, ACO 2.4 pp. 43–4), written before Leo had heard of the final decision to hold a council. It envisages the disciplinary matters being resolved by his own legates and Anatolius of Constantinople acting in concert and presses that Eutyches be sent into distant exile.

¹⁴ See Chadwick 2003, 45–9.

(1) MARCIAN TO POPE LEO (SEPTEMBER 450)¹⁵

The victors Valentinian and Marcian, glorious and triumphant, always Augusti, to Leo, the most devout archbishop of the glorious city of Rome.

To this most great sovereignty I have come by God’s providence and by the election of the most excellent senate and of the entire army.¹⁶ Therefore, on behalf of the venerable and catholic religion of the Christian faith, by the help of which we trust that the strength of our power will be directed, we believe it to be proper that your holiness, possessing primacy in the episcopate of the divine faith, be first addressed by our sacred letters, urging and requesting your holiness to entreat the eternal deity on behalf of the stability and state of our rule, so that we should have such a purpose and a desire that, by the removal of every impious error through holding a council on your  authority,¹⁷ perfect peace should be established among all the bishops of the catholic faith, existing unsullied and unstained by any wickedness.

Issued at Constantinople, in the consulship of the lord Valentinian perpetual Augustus for the seventh time and of the most illustrious Avienus.

¹⁵ Leo, ep. 73, ACO 2.3 p. 17 (ep. ante gesta 27). The letter must have been sent soon after Marcian’s accession on 25 August 450.

¹⁶ For the role of senate and army in the election of an emperor see Jones, LRE, 322.

¹⁷ Coleman-Norton, RSCC 2, 767 reads this letter as an invitation to Leo to hold an ecumenical council in Italy, but surely what Marcian is requesting is Leo’s approval for a council to be held (under Marcian’s direction) in the east.

(2) MARCIAN TO POPE LEO (22 NOVEMBER 450)¹⁸

Marcian to Leo, the most devout bishop of the church of the most glorious city of Rome.

Your holiness can be confident about our zeal and prayer, since we wish the true Christian religion and the apostolic faith to remain firm and be preserved with a pious mind by all people; indeed we are in no doubt that the solicitude of our power depends on correct religion and propitiating our Saviour. Therefore the most devout men, whom your holiness has sent to our piety, we have received willingly and, as was fitting, with a grateful heart.

It remains that, if it should please your beatitude to come to these parts and hold a council, you should deign to do this through love of religion; your holiness will certainly satisfy our desires and will decree what is useful for sacred religion. But if it is burdensome for you to come to these parts, may your holiness make this clear to us in your own letter, with the result that our sacred letters may be sent to all the east and to Thrace and Illyricum, that all the most holy bishops should assemble in a certain specified place, according to our pleasure, and declare by their own statements what may benefit the Christian religion and the catholic faith, as your holiness has defined in accordance with the ecclesiastical canons.

¹⁸ Leo, ep. 76, ACO 2.3 p. 18 (ep. 28). The date is given in the preface to the Greek version, ACO 2.1 p. 8 (ep. 8).

(3) PULCHERIA TO POPE LEO (22 NOVEMBER 450)¹⁹

Pulcheria Augusta to Leo, the most devout bishop of the church of the glorious city of Rome.

We have received the letter of your beatitude with the respect due to every bishop; through it we have come to know that your faith is pure and such as should be rendered together with sanctity to the holy temple. I likewise and my lord, the most serene emperor my consort, always have persevered and now persevere in the same faith, shunning all wickedness, defilement and criminality. Therefore Anatolius, the most holy bishop of glorious Constantinople, has persevered in the same faith and religion and embraces the apostolic confession of your letter, after the suppression of the error generated by some at the present time, as your holiness will be able to discover clearly from his letter also, for he likewise has subscribed without any procrastination to the letter on the catholic faith sent by your beatitude to Bishop Flavian of holy memory.

Accordingly, may your reverence deign to indicate, in whatever way you may decide, that all the bishops of the entire east, Thrace and Illyricum, according to the pleasure also of our lord the most pious emperor my consort, should speedily assemble from the eastern parts in one city and, when a council has been held there, issue on your authority, according to the dictates of faith and Christian piety, decrees relating to the catholic confession and to those bishops who were previously excluded. In addition, may your holiness know that, by order of our lord and most tranquil prince my consort, the body of Bishop Flavian of holy memory has been brought to the glorious city of Constantinople and appropriately placed in the basilica of the Apostles,²⁰ where his episcopal predecessors were customarily buried. And similarly those bishops who were sent into exile for the same reason, that they had concurred with the most holy Flavian in the concord of the catholic faith, he has commanded by the force of his ordinance to return, so that by the council’s approval and the sentence of all the assembled bishops they may recover episcopal office and their own churches.

¹⁹ Leo, ep. 77, ACO 2.3 pp. 18-19 (ep. 29). Since Leo responded to this letter (in Document 4) on the same day (13 April) as he replied (in ep. 78) to Marcian’s letter of 22 November, we may also date Pulcheria’s letter to 22 November.

²⁰ The Church of the Twelve Apostles, built by Constantine and later rebuilt by Justinian.

(4) POPE LEO TO PULCHERIA (13 APRIL 451)²¹

Leo to Pulcheria Augusta.

That which we always presumed about your piety’s disposition, we have now fully discovered by experience – that, however varied the plots of wicked men by which it is assailed, nevertheless when you are present and equipped by the Lord for its defence the Catholic faith cannot be shaken. For God does not neglect either the mystery of his mercy or the deserts of your labour, by which you formerly expelled the crafty foe of holy religion from the very vitals of the church, when the Nestorian impiety was unable to maintain its heresy, for the reason that it did not escape the handmaid and pupil of the truth how much poison was poured into simple people by the specious lies of that glib man.²² It was a consequence of this trial of strength that through your solicitude the machinations of the devil contrived by means of Eutyches did not remain hid, and those who had embraced one or other side in this twinned impiety were laid low by the single power of the catholic faith.²³ Your second victory was therefore the destruction of Eutyches’ error, which, if he had had any soundness of mind, he could easily have avoided, since it had been repulsed in its originators and long ago laid low,²⁴ rather than trying to stir the fire into life from the buried ashes, in such a way as to share the lot of those whose example he followed, most glorious. We wish, therefore, to jump for joy and to fulfil appropriate vows to God for your clemency’s prosperity, for he has already bestowed on you a double palm and crown through all parts of the world where the gospel of the Lord is preached.

Your clemency should know, therefore, that the whole Roman church hugely rejoices in all the works of your faith, whether the way you have with pious zeal assisted our representatives in everything and restored the catholic priests who by an unjust sentence had been ejected from their churches, or the way you have secured with due honour the return of the remains of that innocent and catholic priest, Flavian of holy memory, to the church he presided over so well. Assuredly in all these things the increase of your glory is multiplied, while you venerate the saints according to their deserts and desire to have the thorns and thistles removed from the Lord’s field.

We have learnt from the account both of our representatives and of my brother and fellow-bishop Anatolius, whom you deign to vouch for, that certain bishops from among those who seem to have given consent to impiety request reconciliation and desire catholic communion. To their desires we grant effect in such a way that, responsibility being shared between the representatives we have sent and the above-mentioned bishop, the favour of peace is be granted to those who have been set right and who condemn with their own signatures the wrongs that were committed, because our Christian religion requires both that true justice should constrain the recalcitrant and that love should not reject the penitent.

Because we know how much pious care your grace deigns to devote to catholic priests, we have ensured that it be made known that my brother and fellow-bishop Eusebius is living with us and sharing our communion.²⁵ His church we commend to you, for it is reported to be ravaged by the one who is said to have been unjustly put in his place. We also ask from your piety something that we do not doubt you will do of your own free choice – to support with the favour they deserve both my brother and fellow-bishop Julian and the clergy of Constantinople who adhered to holy Flavian of holy memory with faithful loyalty.²⁶ In relation to everything, we have through our representatives informed your piety of what needs to be done or decreed. Issued on the Ides of April in the consulship of the most illustrious Adelfius.²⁷

²¹ Leo, ep. 79, ACO 2.4 pp. 37–8 (ep. 35). This is a reply to the preceding letter.

²² By this date it was generally believed that Pulcheria had been opposed to Nestorius from his arrival in Constantinople in 428. But in reality she only turned against him after the Council of Ephesus of 431 on reception of massive bribes from Cyril of Alexandria; see Price 2004, esp. 33–4.

²³ Pulcheria was opposed to Eutyches and Dioscorus from the first, and both Leo and the exiled Nestorius looked to her for support. But she did not openly come out on the Roman side until after the death of Theodosius II. See Holum 1982, 195–216.

²⁴ Leo treats Eutychianism as a revival of the Apollinarian heresy condemned at various councils, including the Council of Constantinople of 381.

²⁵ Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum had before his consecration opposed Nestorius in Constantinople. He was the prosecutor of Eutyches at the Home Synod of Constantinople of 448 (I. 223–490), for which he was deposed at Ephesus II (I. 962–1066). Imprisoned, he managed to escape to Rome. He attended the Council of Chalcedon, where he appeared as the prime plaintiff against Dioscorus (I. 14–16; III. 5).

²⁶ Ever since the deposition of Flavian at Ephesus II, Leo had been much concerned to express support for those clergy and monks of Constantinople who remained faithful to his memory; see Leo, epp. 50, 51, 59, 61, 71, 72, 74, 75. Julian of Cos (for whom see I. 3.19n.) often acted as Leo’s agent at Constantinople and was soon to be one of his representatives at the Council of Chalcedon.

²⁷ Eastern documents, such as the Acts of Chalcedon, give ‘Marcian and the one to be designated’ as the consuls for the year, but western documents name only the western nominee, Adelfius. This reflects the delay in recognition of Marcian at the western court, granted only on 30 March 452, due to resentment over the lack of consultation regarding his elevation to the purple.

(5) POPE LEO TO MARCIAN (23 APRIL 451)²⁸

Leo to Marcian Augustus.

Although I replied earlier to your piety through the clergy of Constantinople,²⁹ yet on receiving the letter of your clemency through that illustrious man the prefect of the city my son Tatian,³⁰ I found great cause for thanksgiving, because I have learnt that you are most eager for the peace of the church. The deserved and equitable fruit of this holy desire is that you should enjoy the same condition in your kingdom that you desire for religion. For when the Spirit of God confirms concord among Christian princes, confidence is doubly strengthened throughout the whole world, because the increase of love and faith makes the military power of each invincible, since the result of God’s being appeased by a single confession is that the falsity of heretics and the enmity of barbarians are equally overthrown, most glorious one.³¹ Since, therefore, the hope of heavenly assistance has been increased by friendship between the emperors,³² I venture with greater confidence to stir up your piety on behalf of the mystery of man’s salvation, lest you allow the importunate and impudent ingenuity of anyone to inquire into what must be held as if the matter were uncertain, and lest (although dissent even in a single word from the teaching of the gospels and apostles is forbidden, as is any opinion on holy scripture that differs from what the blessed apostles and our fathers learnt and taught) now at length illiterate and impious questions be raised, which formerly, as soon as the devil stirred them up through hearts attuned to him, were extinguished by the Holy Spirit through the disciples of the truth.

It is, however, most unjust that through the folly of a few we should be called back to conjectural opinions and the warfare of sinful disputes, as if deliberation were necessary, with a renewal of contention, as to whether Eutyches held impious opinions and whether a wrong judgement was delivered by Dioscorus, who in condemning Flavian of holy memory laid himself low and drove some of the more naive headlong to the same destruction. Now that many of them, as we have learnt, have had recourse to the remedy of reparation and are entreating forgiveness for their wavering trepidation, there is need to deliberate not over what form of faith should be embraced, but whose petitions should be granted and on what terms.

Therefore, by means of the delegation which (God granting) will reach your clemency speedily, whatever I judge pertinent to the interests of the case will be more fully and opportunely put to that most pious solicitude which you deign to feel over the convening of a council. Issued on the ninth day before the Kalends of May in the consulship of the most illustrious Adelfius.

²⁸ Leo, ep. 82, ACO 2.4 p. 41 (ep. 39).

²⁹ This refers to ep. 78 (ACO 2.4 p. 38, ep. 36), a brief holding reply to the letter of Marcian given above (Document 2).

³⁰ Tatian, prefect of the city of Constantinople 450–452, was to attend four sessions of the Council of Chalcedon. See PLRE 2, 1053–4.

³¹ Compare the declaration made in Constantinople by the newly consecrated Nestorius to Theodosius II in 428: ‘Give me, my prince, the earth purged of heretics, and I shall give you heaven as a reward. Help me in destroying the heretics, and I shall help you in conquering the Persians’ (Sozomen, HE VII.29).

³² In fact the court of Ravenna did not recognize Marcian till March 452. Leo is urging Marcian to work for concord between east and west by restoring ecclesial unity.

(6) MARCIAN TO THE BISHOPS (23 MAY 451)³³

Copy of the sacra sent by the most pious and Christ-loving emperor Marcian to the most God-beloved bishops everywhere concerning their all assembling at Nicaea.

The victors Valentinian and Marcian, glorious and triumphant, always Augusti, to Anatolius.

Before all matters the things of God should be given priority, for we are confident that, when almighty God is propitious, the commonwealth is both protected and bettered. Therefore, because certain doubts appear to have arisen about our orthodox religion, as is indeed shown by the letter of Leo, the most God-beloved bishop of the glorious city of Rome, this in particular has pleased our clemency that a holy council should be convened in the city of Nicaea in the province of Bithynia, in order that, when minds agree and the whole truth has been investigated, and after the cessation of those\ exertions with which some people have lately disturbed the holy and orthodox religion, our true faith may be recognized more clearly for all time, so that henceforth there can be no doubting or disagreement. Therefore your holiness should exert yourself to come to the aforesaid city of Nicaea by the Kalends of September with whatever most God-beloved bishops you choose and whomever from the churches in the care of your priesthood you consider to be trustworthy and equipped for the teaching of orthodox religion.³⁴ May your God-belovedness know also that our divinity will attend the venerable council, unless perchance some public necessities engage us in a military expedition.

May God preserve you for many years, most holy and sacred father.

Issued on the tenth day before the Kalends of June in Constantinople in the consulship of our lord Marcian perpetual Augustus and the one to be designated.

³³ ACO 2.1 pp. 27–8 (ep. 13). Two Latin versions are extant (ACO 2.3 pp. 19–20, epp. 30– 31), of which the first is addressed to all the bishops and the second lacks an addressee. The version given here, addressed to Anatolius of Constantinople, will have been one of many.

³⁴ The imperial summons to the council was addressed specifically to the metropolitans, who had the responsibility of communicating it to the bishops under their authority, excluding any whom they judged unfit.

(7) POPE LEO TO MARCIAN (24 JUNE 451)³⁵

Leo to Marcian Augustus.

We believed that your clemency could grant our desire that in view of the present crisis you should order the priestly synod to be postponed till a more opportune time, so that, with priests being summoned from all the provinces, there could truly be an ecumenical council. But because out of love for the catholic faith you have resolved that the convocation should occur now, lest I should appear to oppose your pious decision, I have sent my brother and fellow bishop Paschasinus, summoned from that province which seems to be safer,³⁶ who can represent my presence. I have attached to him Boniface my brother and fellow presbyter, and added those whom we sent before, including as their colleague also my brother Bishop Julian.³⁷ We believe that with the help of God these men will transact every matter with such moderating influence that, through the curbing of all dissension, whatever led to complaint and commotion will be restored to the unity of peace and faith, and that no trace of either the Nestorian or Eutychian impiety shall be left in the hearts of any priests, since the catholic faith, which, with the Holy Spirit instructing us, we learnt from the blessed apostles through the holy fathers and also teach, lets neither of these errors infect it, most glorious one. If therefore there is anything in the way of diseases or wounds that can be healed through sincere amendment, we wish that it might be restored to true health. This amendment will not then be at all dubious, nor will it subsequently harm the simplicity of anyone, if it has not wished to cloak itself with any excuses, since the eradication of sin is obtained only by true confession. But because certain of the brethren, as we mention with sorrow, have not been able to maintain catholic constancy against the whirlwinds of falsity, it is meet that my aforesaid brother and fellow bishop should preside in my place at the council.³⁸ For I am confident that those to whom we have entrusted this will labour there without animosity or partisanship to ensure that with the destruction only of heretical impiety truth and charity will reign in all the churches of God. Issued on the eighth day before the Kalends of July in the consulship of the most illustrious Adelfius.

³⁵ Leo, ep. 89, ACO 2.4 pp. 47-8 (ep. 46).

³⁶ Sicily. The reference is to the danger from the Huns in other provinces.

³⁷ The Roman representatives at Chalcedon were Bishops Paschasinus of Lilybaeum (Sicily) and Lucentius of Asculum and the presbyter Boniface. At this stage a further presbyter, Basil, was intended to accompany them (Documents 8 and 10). The eastern bishop Julian of Cos also acted as a papal representative, as requested by Leo, ep. 92 (ACO 2.4 p. 49, ep. 49).

³⁸ In fact Paschasinus presided only at the third session of the council. At all the other sessions the president was a lay official appointed by Marcian, the general Anatolius.

(8) POPE LEO TO MARCIAN (26 JUNE 451)³⁹

Leo to Marcian Augustus.

I had indeed requested your most glorious clemency to order that the council, which for the restoration of the peace of the eastern church was sought even by ourselves and is judged by you to be necessary, be postponed for a little while to a more opportune time, so that with minds more free from every anxiety those bishops who are detained by fear of enemies might also assemble. But because with pious zeal you give priority to divine matters over human ones, and believe in accordance with reason and religion that it will benefit the strength of your reign if there is no dissension in the minds of priests and no disagreement in the preaching of the gospel, I too do not oppose your inclination, hoping that the catholic faith, which can only be one, may be strengthened in the hearts of all. From the integrity of the faith there veered, on different paths but with equal impiety, Nestorius previously and now Eutyches, utterly abominable in their convictions, which, in opposition to the pure source of true light, they drew from the polluted lakes of diabolical falsity. Therefore the earlier synod of Ephesus deservedly and justly condemned Nestorius together with his doctrine; whoever persists in that error can have no hope of any remedy. The subsequent synod in the aforesaid city we cannot call a council, since it is clear that it was set in motion for the overthrow of the faith; your clemency, about to give assistance to Catholics through love of the truth, will annul it⁴⁰ by determining otherwise, most glorious one. Therefore through our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the initiator and director of your reign, I entreat and beseech your clemency not to allow the faith which our blessed fathers preached as received from the apostles to be re-examined, as if it were in doubt, and not to permit what was formerly condemned by the authority of our predecessors to be stirred up by attempts at revival, but that you should rather order that the decrees of the ancient synod of Nicaea should stand, with the suppression of the interpretations of the heretics. In respect of the wish of your clemency, do not deem me absent from the council, since you are to discern my very presence in the brothers whom I have sent, that is, Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, the presbyters Boniface and Basil, and also my brother Julian, whom I selected as their colleague. I am confident that with the help of Christ they will so act that there will be decreed what is pleasing to our Lord, with the assistance of the zeal of your piety, which [I pray] may promote peace, religion, and the preservation of the truth. Issued on the sixth day before the Kalends of July, in the consulship of the most illustrious Adelfius.⁴¹

³⁹ Leo, ep. 90, ACO 2.4 p. 48 (ep. 47).

⁴⁰ Cassavit (‘has annulled’) has greatly superior manuscript authority to cassabit (‘will annul’); the latter variant, discussed at PL 54. 933, is not even mentioned by Schwartz. But surely both the sense and affutura (‘about to assist’) in the same sentence require cassabit. Certainly the decrees of Ephesus II were not annulled until the tenth session of Chalcedon (X. 145–59) and Marcian’s confirmation of the same on 6 July 452 (Documents after the Council 5).

⁴¹ Leo made the same points in a further letter to Marcian (ep. 94, ACO 2.4 pp. 49–50, ep. 50), dated 20 July 451.

(9) POPE LEO TO BISHOP PASCHASINUS (24 JUNE 451)⁴²

Leo to Bishop Paschasinus.

Although I have no doubt that the whole cause of the scandals that have arisen in the eastern churches concerning the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ is fully known to your fraternity,⁴³ nevertheless, lest anything may by chance have succeeded in eluding your care, I have despatched for your attentive review and study our letter, which we sent to Flavian of holy memory as a very full treatment of the matter,⁴⁴ and which the universal church embraces, in order that, understanding how fully the impiety of this entire error has with God’s help been demolished, you yourself in your love for God may conceive the same spirit, and know that they are utterly to be detested who according to the impiety and madness of Eutyches have dared to assert that in our Lord, the only-begotten Son of God, who undertook the renewal of human salvation in himself, there are not two natures, that is, of perfect Godhead and perfect manhood, and who think they can deceive our attentiveness when they say they believe the one nature of the Word to be incarnate. For although the Word of God has indeed one nature in the Godhead of the Father and of himself and of the Holy Spirit, yet when he assumed the reality of our flesh our nature also was united to that unchangeable substance; for one could not speak of incarnation, unless flesh were assumed by the Word. And this assumption of flesh is a union so great and of such a kind that not only in the childbearing of the blessed Virgin but also in her conception one must not imagine any separation of the Godhead from the animated flesh, since Godhead and manhood came together in unity of person both in the conception and in the childbearing of the Virgin.

Hence there is to be abhorred in Eutyches an impiety that was formerly condemned and overthrown by the fathers in relation to previous heretics. This should have benefited this most stupid man, teaching him to beware through a precedent what he could not grasp intellectually, lest he evacuate the unique mystery of our salvation by denying the reality of human flesh in Christ our Lord. For if there is not in him real and perfect human nature, there is no assumption of ourselves, and the whole of what we believe and teach is, according to this man’s impiety, emptiness and deceit. But because the truth does not lie and the Godhead is not passible, there abides in God the Word both substances in one person, and the Church confesses her Saviour in such a way as to acknowledge him both impassible in Godhead and passible in the flesh, as says the Apostle, ‘Although he was crucified in virtue of our weakness, yet he lives in virtue of the power of God.’⁴⁵

In order, however, that your love may be more fully instructed in all things, so that you may recognize clearly what they thought and what they preached to the churches about the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation, I have sent your love certain passages from our holy fathers, which our representatives presented also in Constantinople together with my letter.⁴⁶ You should also know that the whole church of Constantinople, with all the monasteries and many bishops, have declared their assent and by their subscriptions have anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches together with their doctrines. You should know in addition that I have recently received the bishop of Constantinople’s letter, in which he relates that the bishop of Antioch and, after the sending of missives throughout his provinces, all the bishops have demonstrated their assent to my letter and condemned Nestorius and Eutyches with the same subscription.

We think that the following should also be entrusted to your attention: because the reckoning of the feast of Easter does not escape your awareness, you should diligently inquire about a point we found in the instructions of Theophilus⁴⁷ and which troubles us, and that you should examine together with those who possess expertise in this calculation or rule when the day of the Lord’s resurrection should be held in the fourth year to come. For, whereas the coming Easter is to be held, if God is propitious, ten days before the Kalends of April, and in the following year on the eve of the Ides of April, and in the third year on the eve of the Nones of April, Theophilus of holy memory has fixed the observance of Easter in the fourth year eight days before the Kalends of May: now this we find to be quite contrary to the rule of the church, for in our Easter cycle, as you deign to be well aware, the celebration of Easter in that year is set down in writing fifteen days before the Kalends of May.⁴⁸ Therefore, so that doubts may be resolved in every way, may your attentiveness carefully examine this point with all the experts, so that we may avoid mistakes of this kind in future.⁴⁹ Issued eight days before the Kalends of July in the consulship of the most illustrious Adelfius.

⁴² Leo, ep. 88, ACO 2.4 pp. 46–7 (ep. 45). Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum was the senior of Leo’s representatives at the Council of Chalcedon.

⁴³ That is, to you as my brother in the episcopate.

⁴⁴ Leo’s Tome, read out at the second session of Chalcedon (II. 22).

⁴⁵ 2 Cor. 13:4 (the word ‘our’ being added by Leo).

⁴⁶ For the florilegium appended to the Tome, see ACO 2.1 pp. 20–25. For a list of its contents, see Appendix 1: The Documentary Collections, vol. 3, p. 162.

⁴⁷ Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria (385–412) produced a table of dates of Easter for a hundred years starting in 380. The Council of Nicaea had ruled that the churches should follow the Roman and Alexandrian calculations of Easter, but as this letter illustrates the Roman and Alexandrian calenders did not always coincide.

⁴⁸ The four dates in Theophilus’ calculation are 23 March 452, 12 April 453, 4 April 454 and 24 April 455. The Roman date for 455 is 17 April.

 ⁴⁹ The issue of the dating of Easter remained perplexed. We find Leo writing to Julian of Cos in March 454 (ep. 131), instructing him to seek clear guidance from the emperor on the matter, and to Marcian himself in May 454, conveying his acceptance of the Egyptian calculation ‘not because clear reason taught this but because I have been persuaded by concern for unity, which we maintain most of all’ (ep. 137, ACO 2.4 p. 90. 12–13).

(10) POPE LEO TO THE COUNCIL (26 JUNE 451)⁵⁰

Bishop Leo to the holy council held at Nicaea.

I had hoped, beloved, in view of the love of our fellowship, that all the priests of the Lord would persevere in a single zeal for the Catholic faith, and that no one would be corrupted by favour, or fear, of the secular power so as to depart from the way of truth. But because many things often come to pass that can generate repentance, and the faults of offenders are surpassed by the mercy of God, and punishment is for this reason suspended that there can be a place for amendment, we should therefore welcome the plan, full of piety, of the most clement emperor, by which he willed your holy fraternity to convene, in order to frustrate the intrigues of the devil and restore the peace of the church, while the rights and honour of the most blessed Peter the Apostle were safeguarded to the extent of his inviting us also in his letters to bestow our presence on the venerable council. This, however, is permitted neither by the pressure of the times nor by any precedent;⁵¹ yet in these brethren, that is, Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius and the presbyters Boniface and Basil, who have been despatched by the apostolic see, let your fraternity deem me to be presiding over the council. You are not deprived of my attendance, since I am present in my representatives and have for a long time not been failing in the preaching of the catholic faith, with the result that you cannot be in ignorance of what we believe from ancient tradition or in doubt as to what I desire.

Therefore, most dear brethren, through a complete rejection of the effrontery of arguing against the faith divinely revealed, may the futile infidelity of the erring cease, and may it not be permitted to defend what it is not permitted to believe, since, in accordance with gospel authority, the prophetic sayings and the apostolic teaching, the letter which we sent to Bishop Flavian of blessed memory declared most fully and most lucidly what is the pious and pure confession of the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But because we are not ignorant that through vicious factionalism the condition of many churches was disrupted and that a great number of bishops were expelled from their sees and sent into exile because they would not accept heresy, and others were put in the place of those still alive, the remedy of justice should first be applied to these wrongs, and no one should be so deprived of his own that another enjoys what is not his own; for if, as we desire, all abandon error, no one need lose his rank, but those who have laboured on behalf of the faith should have their rights restored together with all their privileges. Let there, however, remain in force what was decreed specifically against Nestorius at the earlier council of Ephesus, at which Bishop Cyril of holy memory then presided, lest the impiety then condemned should derive any comfort from the fact that Eutyches is being struck down by condign execration. For the purity of faith and teaching, which we proclaim in the same spirit as did our holy fathers, condemns and prosecutes equally both the Nestorian and the Eutychian depravity together with their originators.

Fare well in the Lord, most dear brethren.

Issued six days before the Kalends of July in the consulship of the most illustrious Julius Adelfius.⁵²

⁵⁰ Leo, ep. 93, ACO 2.4 pp. 51–2 (ep. 52). A Greek translation was read out at Session XV of Chalcedon (XV. 6).

⁵¹ This principle, which developed through accident, became axiomatic (see I. 83), and was breached only by Pope Vigilius’ forced presence in Constantinople during the council of 553.

⁵² 26 June 451. The Greek text (ACO 2.1 p. 32) reads ‘five days before the Kalends of July’, i.e., 27 June.

(11) POPE LEO TO PULCHERIA (20 JULY 451)⁵³

Leo to Pulcheria Augusta.

Your clemency’s religious solicitude, which you unceasingly devote to the catholic faith, I recognize in everything, and give thanks to God at seeing you taking such care of the universal church that I can confidently recommend what I think agreeable to justice and benevolence, in order that there may the more swiftly be brought to a welcome issue what through the favour of Christ has hitherto been unimpeachably achieved by the zeal of your piety, most glorious one. The fact therefore that your clemency ordered the council to be held at Nicaea, while your mildness declined my request that it be held in Italy, so that, if the times proved sufficiently peaceful, all the bishops in our parts might be summoned and assemble, I have nevertheless accepted with such lack of disdain as to appoint two of my fellow-bishops and two fellow-presbyters who may suffice to represent me. There have been sent to the venerable council appropriate letters, to inform the convoked brotherhood what forms should be observed in this adjudication, lest any rashness should thwart the rules of the faith, the decrees of the canons, or the remedies of benevolence.

For, as I have very frequently written from the start of the affair, I have wanted such moderation to be observed in the midst of discordant views and sinful jealousies that, while indeed no excisions or additions to the completeness of the faith should be permitted, yet the remedy of forgiveness should be granted to those returning to unity and peace, for the reason that the works of the devil are then more effectively destroyed when the hearts of men are recalled to the love of God and neighbour. But how contrary to these warnings and entreaties of mine were the proceedings of that time is a long story to relate, nor is it necessary to record in the pages of a letter whatever it was possible to perpetrate in that meeting at Ephesus that was not a courtroom but a den of thieves,⁵⁴ where the chief men of the council spared neither those brethren who opposed them nor those who agreed with them; for in order to weaken the catholic faith and strengthen detestable heresy they stripped some of the privilege of rank and tainted others with complicity in impiety, showing indeed greater cruelty to those they deprived of innocence through persuasion than to those they made blessed confessors through persecution.

Nevertheless, because such men have done themselves the most harm through their wickedness, and because the greater the wounds, the more assiduous must be the application of the remedy, I have never in any letter decreed that pardon should be withheld even from them, if they came to their senses. And although we are unalterable in our detestation of their heresy, which is most inimical to the Christian religion, yet the men themselves, if they unambiguously amend and cleanse themselves by suitable reparation, we do not judge to be deprived of the ineffable mercy of God, but rather lament with those who lament and weep with those who weep, and in this way apply the justice of deposition without neglecting the remedies of charity. This, as your piety knows, is not a mere verbal promise but is also exhibited in our actions, inasmuch as nearly all who had been either seduced or compelled into assent with those presiding, by rescinding what they decreed and condemning what they signed, have obtained permanent remission of guilt and the favour of apostolic peace.⁵⁵

If, therefore, your clemency deigns to consider my intentions, you will discover that I have acted throughout with the design of achieving the extinction of heresy alone, without the loss of any one soul, and that in the case of the initiators of these most fearsome storms I have for this reason mitigated my practice somewhat in order that their sluggishness might be stirred up by some degree of compunction to request forgiveness. Even though after their judgement, which was as impious as unjust, they cannot be held in such honour by the catholic fraternity as they were formerly, they nevertheless still retain their sees and enjoy their episcopal rank, with the prospect either of receiving the peace of the whole church, after truly making amends as is required, or if, contrary to my hopes, they persist in heresy, of being judged as is merited by their profession. Issued on the thirteenth day before the Kalends of August in the consulship of the most illustrious Adelfius.

⁵³ Leo, ep. 95, ACO 2.4 pp. 50–51 (ep. 51).

⁵⁴ This echoes Christ’s words when cleansing the Temple, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of thieves’ (Mt. 21:13). The Latin word for ‘den of thieves’ is latrocinium, whence the soubriquet for Ephesus II of the ‘Latrocinium’ or ‘Robber Council’.

⁵⁵ By now numerous eastern bishops had recovered ecclesiastical communion with Rome through signing Leo’s Tome.

(12) FIRST LETTER OF MARCIAN TO THE COUNCIL (SEPTEMBER 451)⁵⁶

Sacred letter sent to the council at Nicaea by Valentinian and Marcian.

It is our earnest desire that there be decreed appropriately those things that pertain to the holy and orthodox religion, in order that all doubt may be removed and fitting peace restored to the most holy and catholic churches; for this, we think, should have priority over all affairs. Because, therefore, we wish to be present at the holy council but public and necessary needs are detaining us on an expedition,⁵⁷ may your piety deign not to think it burdensome to wait for the presence of our tranquillity, but to pray that we, ordering well with the help of God the matters we have in hand, may be able to repair there, so that in the presence of our piety there may be decreed what will remove all discord and questioning and confirm the true and venerable orthodox faith.

⁵⁶ The Greek text of this letter (unlike its two successors) is lost. We translate the Latin version, ACO 2.3 pp. 20–21 (ep. 32), undated.

⁵⁷ Hunnic raids had ravaged Illyricum, and Marcian felt the need to conduct an expedition there, to restore order and morale. This postponed the opening of the council.

(13) PULCHERIA TO THE GOVERNOR OF BITHYNIA (SEPTEMBER 451)⁵⁸

Copy of the imperial letter sent by the most pious and Christ-loving empress Pulcheria to the consular of Bithynia⁵⁹ Strategius about securing order in the council, before it was decided to transfer the council from Nicaea to Chalcedon.

It is the aim of our serenity, even before civil matters, that the holy churches of God and those exercising priesthood in them should continue in peace and that the orthodox faith, which we firmly believe sustains our reign, should be protected from disturbance or disruption by any class of person. So when some slight discord lately arose, we took much trouble to ensure that the multitude of most holy bishops from everywhere would assemble together at Nicaea, and that through the unanimity of all every disturbance would be obviated, and that in future the pure faith would prevail firm and unshakeable.

In accordance with our decree all the most religious bishops have arrived and await the presence of our power, who with the help of God will soon be present. But, as we have heard, certain of those wont to upset the order dear to God, having infiltrated Nicaea, clerics and monks and laymen, are trying to cause a commotion, contesting what has been approved by us.⁶⁰ We are therefore of necessity sending this pious letter to your illustriousness, to ensure that with all firmness you totally expel from the city and its districts any clerics who are staying there without our summons or the bidding of their own bishops, whether they happen to enjoy rank or if some of them have been deposed by their own bishops, and also any monks or laymen whom no good reason calls to the council, so that, when the holy council has taken its seat in good order and without any disturbance or dispute, the revelation by Christ the Lord may be confirmed jointly by all. Be aware that if anyone in future be detected causing a disturbance while staying in the districts there, either before the arrival of our serenity or even after it, you will incur no slight danger.

⁵⁸ ACO 2.1 p. 29 (ep. 15), undated. The Latin version (ACO 2.3 p. 21) follows the Greek word for word, and betrays its secondary character by a number of slips and infelicities: most obviously, the Greek clause meaning ‘awaiting the presence of our power’ is very poorly rendered by ‘sustinentes potentiae nostrae praesentiam’ (lines 18–9).

⁵⁹ Bithynia was the province in which Nicaea (and Chalcedon) lay.

⁶⁰ The reference is probably not to Egyptian monks instigated by Dioscorus, as suggested by Schwartz 1937, but to supporters of Eutyches from Constantinople, for whose activity during the council see IV. 76–88.

(14) SECOND LETTER OF MARCIAN TO THE COUNCIL (SEPTEMBER 451)⁶¹

Copy of the second imperial letter sent to the holy council, assembled at Nicaea, on the need to transfer to Chalcedon.

The victors Valentinian and Marcian, glorious, triumphant, most great, ever august, to the God-beloved council.

Extremely pressing affairs of state have been the cause of our delay, though we are eager to come to the holy council; but we know from what your God-belovedness has written that many of you are suffering both from bodily ailments and from various other causes. Even though, therefore, very numerous affairs of state oblige us to remain here, nevertheless we consider that care for the holy and orthodox faith should have priority over everything else. For the most devout bishops and presbyters who have come on behalf of the most holy and God-beloved Leo, the archbishop of all-fortunate Rome, have begged our serenity that by every means we should attend the holy council, affirming that they do not choose to attend there in the absence of our piety. In accordance with the request of your religiousness, we ourselves, being extremely desirous that your most holy council should be convened speedily, are eager to come to you swiftly. Therefore, if it should please your religiousness, deign to come to the city of Chalcedon. For we shall hasten there, even if the needs of state are detaining us here, since we consider that the things that contribute to the true and orthodox faith and to the peace and good order of the most holy and catholic churches should have priority over everything else; and we do not doubt that this will also please your holinesses, lest the cramped conditions of the city should make you suffer more and the business of the holy council should seem to be protracted further by the absence of our serenity. Deign to pray for our rule, that our enemies may surrender to us and that the peace of the world may be confirmed and Roman affairs continue in tranquillity – which we are confident you are doing even now.

May God preserve you, most holy ones, for many years.

⁶¹ ACO 2.1 pp. 28–9 (ep. 14), undated.

(15) THIRD LETTER OF MARCIAN TO THE COUNCIL (22 SEPTEMBER 451)⁶²

Likewise a copy of the third imperial letter sent to the holy council at Nicaea, while the most pious emperor was detained in Thrace, on the need to transfer without delay to Chalcedon.

The Emperors and Caesars Valentinian and Marcian, triumphant victors, ever august, to the holy council assembled at Nicaea according to the will of God and our decree.

Already and by our other divine letters we have instructed your religiousness to come to the city of Chalcedon for the confirmation of the previous definitions of our holy fathers concerning the holy and orthodox faith, so that the mass of the orthodox should no longer be deceived, straying in various directions, but that all may confess Christ our Lord and Saviour as is proper and as our most holy fathers have taught. Because of our fervent zeal for the faith we have deferred for the time being the pressing needs of state, since we attach great importance to the confirmation of the orthodox and true faith in the presence of our serenity. We trust that the events in Illyricum have reached your ears also: even though by God’s will they received condign retribution, nevertheless the interests of the state required the departure of our serenity to Illyricum. But since, as has been said, we consider that nothing should have priority over the orthodox faith and its confirmation, we have on this account postponed for a time more distant campaigning. And now especially we urge your religiousness by this our divine letter to repair without any delay to the city of Chalcedon.

Since from the report to our serenity from Atticus, deacon of the most holy and catholic church in the imperial city, we have learned that your sacredness suspects that some of those who share the views of Eutyches, or someone else, may perhaps try to sow dissension or disorder, we instruct you on this account to come to the city of Chalcedon, with no anxiety at all over the aforesaid reason. For after everything relating to the orthodox and true faith has been decreed rightly and as is pleasing to God without any disturbance or disorder, we hope in God’s clemency that each one of you will return home speedily. Therefore be eager to come, and make no delay in the matter, lest through your procrastination the search for the truth suffer delay. For we are extremely eager, once through the favour of the Almighty the matter has been concluded satisfactorily, to return again speedily to the highly successful campaign.

May God preserve you for many years, most holy and God-beloved fathers.

Issued ten days before the Kalends of October at Heraclea.⁶³

⁶² ACO 2.1 p. 30 (ep. 16).

⁶³ Heraclea in Thrace. The date and place are given only in the Latin version (ACO 2.3 p. 23).